One Ranter made the statement that healthcare should not be a national "entitlement", but that it would be okay on a state by state basis, if that's what states legislated.

That got me to thinking, what are the sideboards for the scale of socially provided services? What makes something like healthcare off-limits for the federal government, and not off-limits for the states to socialize?

Here is my overview of it, as someone who thinks that "providing for the general welfare" (seen twice in the Constitution) is a serious commitment, and not just a vague typo:

There are some services that people require that are not linked up with how much money you make, and often not under the direct control of individuals. The need for healthcare is one of them. Like food, for which it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are you still need it in a basic amount and quality or else suffer and die, healthcare is also needed and it costs just as much if you are poor as when you are well-off or rich.

We recognize this state of affairs implicitly, and provide "emergency" services for the starving and sick through inefficient and tardy band-aid strategies that end up costing huge amounts of money but never improve the underlying conditions. This backwards approach also costs immense amounts in lost productivity and lessened quality of life, something that business geniuses like Trump, and budget policy gurus like Ryan have never bothered to include in their "common sense solutions" for issues that are "more complex than anybody knew..."

I think a universal federal healthcare program is well-fitted to the Constitutional obligation to the general welfare.

_________________________
"You can't fix a problem until you understand what the problem is." Logtroll

I have always advocated a discussion of what the general welfare means. I am not sure the Founders knew with any specificity what it meant but they apparently understood the form of government they were intent on creating should benefit its citizenry i.e. provide services. The very nature of evolving national interests and changing social conventions obviously meant whatever the general welfare means would change with time.

One of the first instances was the National Road. The federal government appropriated monies and built a road from DC to New Orleans which benefited both the government , with improved efficiencies in governing and helped local businessmen with a better means of transportation which free market etc.

The real question once a conclusion has been determined (I believe with conservatives and Republicans trying to devise a plan, they have come to the same conclusion, health care is a pubic issue) the next question is how is policy implemented. We are in the midst of that process.

_________________________ignorance is the enemywithout equality there is no liberty

Pfffffft...Not on Trump's watch! All those pesky regulations get in the way of profits.

Back in the days of yore, there was little to be done when a man lay dying. Medicines were rudimentary, surgery often fatal. Healthcare wasn't expensive because it was mostly non-existent. But scientists and researchers, called natural philosophers back then, persevered. Medicines were improved, surgical procedures made safer, hospitals became more than a place to go and die.

And prices rose.

Many nations, some with constitutions very similar to our own, saw that universal health care was more important than low taxes. They saw that a healthy population was more economically sound. That a worker who regularly saw a doctor was a more productive worker.Even the Massachusetts Republican has said that...

Quote:

If we don't take care of the elderly, we fail as a society.

I would posit that if we don't take care of the least among us, be they children, the elderly, the sick and infirm of any age then we fail as a society.

Back in the days of yore, there was little to be done when a man lay dying. Medicines were rudimentary, surgery often fatal.

Regarding government healthcare--several years ago my dear departed wife Martha got me a book about President Garfield and his medical woes after he was shot in his ultimately successful assassination attempt. No--hasheesh was not involved.

Instead the doctors would, from time to time, shove their unwashed hands into him rooting around in attempts to remove the bullet that was still lodged inside of him. Joseph Lister-who was watching this from afar- was appalled and suggested they wash their hands thoroughly prior to inserting them into Garfield's body and that they also practice antiseptic techniques. Pfftt.

Garfield's doctors thought that Listers proposed sterilization ideas to be ridiculous and carried on with their invasive and unhygienic assault on President Garfield. After all, how strong and detrimental could some hypothetical creatures be that one could not even see with the naked eye? Never mind—-